Frankenerd
Airman
- 39
- Oct 20, 2016
Well yes, it did make over 2900 HP! See any of the books on German aero engines.
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Well yes, it did make over 2900 HP! See any of the books on German aero engines.The best big radial used in ww2 was R-2800. Period.
The best V12 was RR Griffon, second best was the RR Merlin. Merlin was the most important engine for the outcome of ww2, 1st in defense then both defense and attack.
DB 603 was plagued with reliability problems for 15 months (give or take) after introduction. DB 624 was supposed to operate on 2900 rpm, not to have 2900 HP.
I define 'the best in ww2' as combination of power at all altitudes used, reliability, usability, role played in the war; in this order; obviously disregarding the engines that were produced in small numbers.
Have you ever actually looked at any WW-II fighter plane with the cowl panels open? WO knowing the exact dimensions, I suspect it would fit into a Me-109, IF the mounting beams - system was redesigned?Just so we are talking about the same things.
DB624
Like a lot of fancy multi-stage superchargers/intercoolers the volume of the supercharger system approaches (or exceeds) the volume of the engine itself.
Please note there is no way in this universe that this thing is going to fit into a F190/Ta 152 airframe. Me 410 is going to look like WHAT with a pair of them???
Granted a production version might have been better packaged but a lot of these "paper/test" engines leave an awful lot to be desired when compared to engines that actually saw service.
From Daimler-Benz Aircraft Engines
Sorry but that isn't the case. The primary target for the RAF were the bombers not the fighters and that was a significant factor in the loss ratio. To blame it on the throttle limits is more than a little misleading. The RAF fighters didn't ahve the range to spend much time chasing fighters back across the channel. Did it happen from time to time, obviously yes, however it wasn't a significant factor.Lets look at the Spit/Merlin combo;
The Spit was barely competitive with the Me-109 over England, with K/L ratios about 1.2/1, mainly because of throttle limits imposed by the return trip on the Germans.
The biggest danger to the RAF in the Spit V was the FW190 not the 109. No one would deny the FW190 was the best fighter of the time by some margin. The 109F and Spit V were very closeWhen the Spit/Merlin flew across the channel to France, they had their collective butts handed to them on a silver platter with K/L Ratios of 4.5/1 to 7/1!
On this we will have to disagree. Once the Spit IX entered service the 109 was always behind the curve and at a significant disadvantage.This state of things never got better for the Spit/Merlin.
I have one, but it is packed away and I can not remember it's title at this moment? Do a better search?I blame the "Luft46" crowd for the poor situation on German piston engine books. The same group is responsible for the situation in which we have detailed books on aircraft like the He 162 while not a single good technical book exists on the Ju 87.
I am just listing the actual K/L Ratios. Many here list the bombers as targets argument, but that is not relevant. They only killed 12 for a loss of ten when on this side of the channel and the throttle restrictions I mention are on the Germans not the Brits. They were reluctant to use full throttle that would let them out maneuver the Spits easily because if they did, they might not make it back to base. While a dog fight was an iffy thing, running out of gas was a sure looser!Sorry but that isn't the case. The primary target for the RAF were the bombers not the fighters and that was a significant factor in the loss ratio. To blame it on the throttle limits is more than a little misleading. The RAF fighters didn't ahve the range to spend much time chasing fighters back across the channel. Did it happen from time to time, obviously yes, however it wasn't a significant factor.
The biggest danger to the RAF in the Spit V was the FW190 not the 109. No one would deny the FW190 was the best fighter of the time by some margin. The 109F and Spit V were very close
On this we will have to disagree. Once the Spit IX entered service the 109 was always behind the curve and at a significant disadvantage.
Lets look at the Spit/Merlin combo;
!
The RM 14 SM was the starting point of the V1650-9. There were significant differences between the two and detailed in other posts that list them. Secondly, the single stage Allison was much better than the single stage Merlin. Many make comps between the TSTS Merlin and the SSSS Allison. A fair comp would be the two stage Allison in the P-38 and the TSTS Merlin. The two are almost contemporary's!
What we got right was the materials science and metallurgy to make turbos last.
The early P-51 eats the early Spit for lunch.
Why not comp the Later Allison V-1710/145TCM to any RR V-12 at that point in time? Any R-R piston engine make 3020 HP in 1944?
Their entire trouble was getting strategic hi-temp alloys that were not available. But they made it work WO anyway!
No other LC Engine cooling system in any WW-II plane in service, comps favorably to the P-51! None! The leading edge installations are junk, if you judge them honestly. But none of the LC engines matched the tightly cowled R-2800 in the big Republic experimental XP-47J that went 505 MPH! The P-82 was faster than the Hornet by any measure. Heck, the late model P-38 was faster than the Hornet at higher altitudes! It was also faster when toting TWO Torpedoes! But wait, the Hornet can not carry TWO torps!
Have you ever actually looked at any WW-II fighter plane with the cowl panels open? WO knowing the exact dimensions, I suspect it would fit into a Me-109, IF the mounting beams - system was redesigned?
Go to the web page for the Museum of the USAF at Wright-Patt and look up the pics of their 109G10?, IIRC and then tell me there is not 18" of vertical space wasted under the cowl! ( Combining both top clearance and bottom space.)
Yes, it depends on the type of engine.
Jet-Germany
The P-82 was barely faster than the Hornet.
Sorry but it is very relevant. The bombers are attacking your cities, production facilities and bases then the bombers are the priority. This was clear in a number of orders given to the RAF squadrons and orders not to follow the Luftwaffe back to France.I am just listing the actual K/L Ratios. Many here list the bombers as targets argument, but that is not relevant.
I have read a lot about the conflict but have never read about any German pilot who was reluctant to use full boost in combat beacuse of fuel restrictions. Its certainly been a serious concern on the way home. If you could point me to a book or reference that supports your view that the 109 pilots were reluctant to use full boost in combat I would appreciate it, because I certainly could be wrong.They only killed 12 for a loss of ten when on this side of the channel and the throttle restrictions I mention are on the Germans not the Brits. They were reluctant to use full throttle that would let them out maneuver the Spits easily because if they did, they might not make it back to base. While a dog fight was an iffy thing, running out of gas was a sure looser!
Why? because the FW190 was the best fighter of any nation by a huge margin at that time. The Me109F wasn't. It was good, it was very good but the Spit V was overall as good, but both were inferiour to the FW190. The vast majority of the RAF fighter losses at the time were down to the FW190.While on the other side of the channel, the rolls were reversed and the options were on the other side. The RAF lost their shirts by huge margins! Why?
I am sorry but this is a meaningless statistic. Take out the huge number of Russian aircraft slaughtered by the 109 and the figures would dramatically change. Interestingly the Luftwaffe didn't really believe that the 109 had any superiority over the Spitfire either. IN the desert the loss ratio was overwhelmingly in favour of the Luftwaffe, until the Spit turned up, and as soon as the first ones arrived even in small numbers the ratio changed overnight. In Russia when the first Lend Lease Spitfires arrived the first Luftwaffe pilots who saw them were asked to change their reports because of the impact it would have on Morale. Over Malta despite having every possible tactical advantage the Luftwaffe 109's still failed to eliminate the defence of the island.It's simple, the Me-109 was the best fighter plane of the war! Bar none! In fact, the Me-109 was the best three planes of the war as various models shot down more EA than any other plane.
And I believe in the tooth fairyThat means the Me-109 was FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD best fighter plane of the war, before the P-51, P-47 and in Russian hands the P-39 in forth, fifth and sixth places respectively! PS. I do not know where the Fw-190, Yak-3, F4F, F6F and Zero stood, but all were better than the Spitfire in total numbers of kills.
And I believe in the tooth fairy
Because in the end they back themselves into a corner even they cannot escape fromWhilst I admire your effort I don't know why you are bothering to argue with someone who doesn't have the faintest idea what the statistics he is quoting actually mean. He is quoting dodgy statistics with no context.
"There are three kinds of lies:....."
Cheers
Steve
Because in the end they back themselves into a corner even they cannot escape from
Well, yes it does! It's not the Hydro-Carbons that make the differences, it's the aromatic compounds and Tetra-Ethel Lead that make the real differences and the Germans were years behind everyone else!